A Proposal and Examination of What Best Fulfills the Needs of Locally Neglected Creeks and Watersheds
by Craig Clemons
 |
| Another picture of the creek looking down. It's fuller today than normal. My foot also decided to be sneaky on this one. |
Things like “Protect the Environment” and “Don't be mean be green” have been catch all, feel good phrases that have been used for decades. Many of us don't think past that. Even fewer of us think about how best to understand how to do either of those things that close to home. One of the most widely accessible and widely under emphasized areas of environmentalism is watershed management. Which is more often taking care of a local stream or creek. There is however a good way, and a bad way to manage a stream. To come in immediately with a backhoe and dig them all out so they flow consistently is on the bad list. This will cause severe damage to the life of the stream as well as cause substantial disruptions to everyone that lives along the creek. Would you then clean you hands of concern and leave all the work and maintenance to be done by the environmental agencies? As bizzare as is it may seem, almost all of the benefit that comes from having all the minds gathered in one place is hardly ever needed. Only in the most technical examples of environmental reconstruction(ex Exon Valdiese Oil Spil) are they ever actually needed. The best thing to do is to have community group, an entity that is entirely autonomous from any government organization that looks to government and other experts for technical assistance. A group whose main purpose is to promote environmental stewardship and collect environmental data for better local understanding.
Creeks serve as biological sanctuaries in their natural state. Unfortunately, as a general rule their quality degrades the more often we take the liberty to build things around them. A recent aquaculture study found a direct correlation between the reduction of biodiversity and the level of urban development surrounding a creek (Fore et al 118). Furthermore the same study shows that percent dominance (the percent of an environment that is taken up by a single species (a key indicator in poor ecosystem health)) increases as human development increases. This demonstrates that our actions are forcing creeks in a watershed to foster less and less life. If the rate of urbanization and our environmental protection record continues. Our existing ecosystems will not be able to exist in the way similar to the way they have for centuries. All hope of restoring already damaged ecosystems will be lost. It is for this reason that their continued protection will be crucial in the upcoming decades. For ourselves and those who come after us.
Understanding that there are two main actors in watershed management, and understanding how to optimize them is absolutely crucial. The Volunteers, or people who choose to make efforts for the protection of the environment without monetary gain. And, government agencies. Which are funded and standardized based off or rigid requirements that are derived from macroscopic principles of land use.
In Defense of Volunteers
There are some who would call to question the capacity of volunteers to aid in creek preservation in any real, meaningful sense. These criticisms come in three flavors, First that the volunteers will not be willing to make this effort. Second, that the volunteers will not be able to match the precision of professionals and as such professionals ought to be hired. And lastly, some claim that the volunteers, however good in intention or skill will be unable to amass the funds to maintain the projects they delve into.
To address the issue of motivation, it is worth noting that a group of scientists recently published a paper entitled “Assessing the Performance of Volunteers in Monitoring Streams” this assessment had the unintended side effect of demonstrating just how tenacious volunteers are. “This project demonstrated a very strong interest in stream health by local citizens (77 people participated) and a willingness to spend long hours sorting and identifying very small animals (>880 h). Most volunteers said they would participate again.” (120). On average each volunteer gave more than 11 hours to the project. They would also continue to do so if needed.
As previously referenced Fore and others have analyzed empirically whether or not volunteers can compete with professionals in terms of precise measurement of data and its collection. “Citizen volunteers, when properly trained, can collect reliable data and make stream assessments that are comparable to those made by professionals.”(Fore et al 109) This analysis was done in two parts, Field tests and lab tests. After the appropriate training, there was absolutely no difference in the quality of the field tests. Furthermore the only areas where the volunteers lab testing started to falter on was on taxonomic distinctions of various local wildlife. The margin of the professionals ability to analyze data was very slim. They only performed 13% better than the volunteers. Which once analyzed viewing current field statistical standards is within the margin of error. Additionally, another independent review that was originally written to be concerned with analyzing groups using effective research tools in middle, and high schools. This review states that “Approaches are needed that are inexpensive and simple enough to enable nonspecialist volunteers to measure ecosystem health over time so that land uses can be evaluated for long term sustainability.”(Fleming 30) after analyzing a data set of 772 local programs of this variety he discovered that “Nearly one fifth of the programs surveyed have annual budgets of $100 or less, With 44% costing 1000 or less.” (Fleming 30). This is a dollar amount that all but the absolute poorest environmental groups could afford to implement.
For a real world demonstration of the effectiveness of volunteers if organized together toward a environmental protection endeavor. Examine the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The Appalachian Trail is a hiking trail that stretches the entire length of the Appalachian mountains, from Maine to Georgia. Some 2100 miles of trail through all kinds of terrains and climates. In addition to maintaining the physical trail itself since its completion in 1934, starting in 1984 the national parks service delegated responsibility for the trail's corridor lands to the ATC. All of this without becoming a part of a larger bureaucratic agency. These are simply people coming together for what they feel is the good of the community. These same principles can, and have been applied to stream conservation.
The Stream Doctor Project is just what its name implies. It is an organization dedicated to the maintenance and promotion of stream and watershed health nationwide. “The role of Save Our Streams (part of the Stream Doctor Project) is to serve as the middle man between the general public and the professional and scientific community. By translating technical information into language that the public can understand.”(Middleton 293)
On the issue of Government
Some have argued that the issue with getting policies implemented correctly is hardly a matter of government agency implementation. Rather, that it is an issue of good agency policy vs poor policy. When referring to the overarching goal of the government based watershed management and, addressing why it failed. Mishra, Saxenaa (183) claimed that “At every level the basic intentions behind the watershed programme were diluted, leading to the creation of differential impact.”. They also claim that “The impact of large-scale watershed development projects . . . has been less than optimal. Existing impact assessment studies have attributed this to the inefficiency of the implementing agency. This paper argues that this explanation is insufficient and proposes a broad-based explanation which brings in issues such as policy dilution, stakeholder interests and organisational processes.”(175) once more they claim that “the lack of cooperation, conflict of interests and power-play changed the portfolio of interventions and the benefit distribution pattern”(183). All of this is essentially painting a picture that points to individual, community-Driven non-government organizations as being obstructionists to the greater goal of civic harmony.
The claims made by Mishra and Saxena fail to hold up to empirically procured evidence from studies world-wide. The first of which being the investigations made in Japan, a country that has historically held just the idea that Mishra and Saxena seem to promote. The idea that allowing full jurisdiction to government supported agencies will make for the most successful policy. In regards to Japan's current watershed issues Ohno et all says “Since the River Law was amended in 1964, river management in Japan has been almost exclusively the province of national and prefectural government, and, as a result, residents along rivers have been unable to participate in the decision-making process” he later continues that “Lack of public participation has sometimes resulted in inappropriate river development projects, leading to serious degradation of the natural and social environment (e.g., loss of biodiversity, eutrophication in dam reservoirs, insufficient consent or compensation for the submerged community)”(304) Drawing from this “The result has been, nationwide, fierce campaigns against large-scale river development projects,”(304) Furthermore sociological examinations show that “as a result of this bureaucratic river management system, many people now feel increasingly alienated from and indifferent to rivers”. All this in conclusion, leads directly to the conclusion that while a top down approach to watershed management would in theory seem to be the most appropriate, and beneficial for all parties. It fails because those who have the closest attachment to the creek/river/part of watershed are the ones that are ignored by the policy. And by doing this you alienate most of if not all of your potential volunteer force. Which as demonstrated earlier, a volunteer force can be quite impressive. Any loss of it would have severe negative effects on all watershed projects
 |
| Table 4 Structure and Decision Process "Governments, Group Membership, and Watershed Partnerships" |
.
An American study examined the management process and output of three main types of water management governmental groups, citizen-centered groups, and mixed-groups. It is here where we notice that the distribution of authority is quite different among the three structures. The government-centered ones are the least open to citizen/landowner concerns, creating the distance effect noted earlier in the Japanese example.The Citizen-centered model however was entirely developed by the people for they themselves leaving no disconnect between local needs/wants. The Mixed-groups act more similarly to government-centered group structure. After analyzing all three, the conclusion reached was that “These [governmental] groups were the most successful at research and restoration projects related to highly complex issues, such as removal of hazardous sediments from the river and the coordination of storm water management institutions to be implemented on a watershed scale.”(Hardy 600) and that “These groups [citizen-centered] are most successful at stewardship,education, garnering widespread community support for watershed conservation, and lobbying public officials for policy change.”(600) while commenting that “ With these groups[citizen-centered], the largest impact of collaboration with government is thus witnessed in technical . . . support” (600) after all of this they state that “Key informants in this study suggested that grant-giving organizations should afford groups more flexibility with the use of financial resources and greater availability of human and technical resources”(600). This would help watershed coordinators and group members capitalize on their professional strengths and social networks, as well as incorporate more of a local perspective on watershed management activities. This flexibility comes ready made with the creation of a citizen-centered authority structure.
Another distinct governmental issue brought up by Westphal which is the need for an overarching government wide infrastructure protection plan. This would require a large body of governmental agencies to expend a lot of time and a lot of money to make investments into natural disaster damage relief and prevention. The subliminal claim here is that the “macro” picture cannot be seen from a local perspective and as such a macro perspective is absolutely necessary. I will grant him that it is imperative that we have a plan for dealing with natural disasters. Furthermore I will say that I am not altogether against government intervention in the area of nature. I think only, that it should be decentralized if possible and pragmatic. Especially in the area of stewardship and data collection. Which is something that volunteers citizen-based organizations have proven to be particularly adept at. For this reason i think the advent of infrastructure protection plans do not necessarily denounce the value of citizen care groups.
This brings up another issue with government. A perceived paradox one contributed by Babbbit(18) “American voters are increasingly demanding less federal regulation while aggressively telling the Republican Congress they want more environmental protection.” instinctively this would seem to be a paradox and many of us fall into the trap of seeing this as a black and white decision. There is however a simple answer. Use volunteers, set standards and have volunteers do the leg work. It has been demonstrated both theoretically and empirically that Volunteer groups of citizens are more adept at government agencies at doing just that.
 |
| A picture of the creek from further downstream. Notice the ditch like attributes shown here. |
Ending Remarks
The issue of watershed management isn't a simple one. There are some flaws within this. The value of volunteer led research diminishes as human development around the creek approaches zero. Citizen groups will have to develop a solid working relationship with government agencies to accomplish key tasks. Which may reduce in some senses the autonomy that makes them work so well. And also there are some tasks at which the government agencies will be better equipped to handle such as large-scale toxic waste. These together do not diminish the greater goal of a more effective, more precise and more community friendly way to promote environmental understanding and volunteerism so that the waterways in this world is as vibrant for future generations as they have been for ours.
The evidence of the usefulness of community given volunteers with scientific oversight has been well documented. Even if not adequately publicized. For this reason i think it would be wise for us all to take some time out and form them. Instead of simply demanding another entity to take care of our land. Let those who know it best do what they like to do best. Conserve, protect and ensure that the creeks of our childhoods are there for our children, and our children's children.
Works Cited
Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trail Conservancy n.d. Web.8 Jul. 2011
Babbitt, Bruce. "Less regulation, more protection." Christian Science Monitor 08 Mar. 1996: 18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011.
Fore, Leska S., Kit Paulsen, and Kate O'Laughlin. "Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams." Freshwater Biology 46.1 (2001): 109-123. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.
Fleming, William. "Volunteer Watershed Health Monitoring by Local Stakeholder: New Mexico Watershed Watch." Journal of Environmental Education 35.1 (2003): 27-32. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011.
Harder, Amy. "A Stalled Movement." National Journal (2011): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011
Hardy, Scott D. "Governments, Group Membership, and Watershed Partnerships." Society & Natural Resources 23.7 (2010): 587-603. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.
Middleton, Julie V. "The Stream Doctor Project: Community-Driven Stream Restoration."BioScience 51.4 (2001): 293. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, and Rakesh Saxena. "Integrated impact assessment model for explaining differential impact of watershed development projects." Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 27.3 (2009): 175-184. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.
Ohno, Tomohiko, Takuya Tanaka, and Masaji Sakagami. "Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis Using Survey Data From the Yodo River Watershed." Society & Natural Resources 23.4 (2010): 303-321. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.
Westphal, Joseph W. "The Politics of Infrastructure." Social Research 75.3 (2008): 793-804. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 July 2011.
